Tim,

I have been looking over the current candidate questionnaire and comparing it to the questions in your book. BTW, thanks for the signed copy. It is on my nightstand. I was pleased to see that you have narrowed down the questions from the initial 175. However, I was sorry to see that a few listed in your book had been dropped: #109 - congressional retirement benefits, #117 & #118 - illegal alien amnesty, #126 - illegal alien medical care, #134 - gun freedom, #139 & #140 - penalties for spammers, hackers, and virus creators, #159 - towns for the homeless, and #166 - penalty for acts of terror or treason.

Oh well, I realize that this a growing process and some things ended up on the cutting room floor. I did like the addition of the public schooling for office holders. One question that I found a bit "off the wall" was the creation of a sixth branch of the Armed Services. I am all for cutting back on military spending and keeping our noses out of other countries business. A new "global police force' would be counter to my way of thinking as it would create a brand new military bureaucracy costing billions. I was glad to see this one disappear.

Robert, we're sorry you feel that way, but we are comfortable with the questions as they are, as are over 10,000 members already. We know we'll never please everybody, and perhaps GOOOH is simply not for you.

Good luck.

This thread is very informative and confirms my impressions.  Everyone should read this one from the beginning.  I'm not sure it was directly addressed but I felt loathed to sign the agreement simply because most of the questions were impossible to answer either for or against.  To commit to such answers would be a lie and not the way I would want to start a campaign.  I like the general premise of goooh but the contract is a deal breaker for me.  Fix the questionnaire and then maybe I would consider a better worded oath. Don't bother asking which question.  The only way to answer that is to copy the whole thing and check off the 3 or 4 that are valid.  I tend to choose my words carefully, maybe too carefully, but I would want that quality in someone I send to represent me in D.C. 

Amen. I voted no on every Constitutional Amendment question except one (Term Limits) because I think Amendment 10 says everything that needs to be said - Powers not delegated to the U.S. by Constitution...

But I get the point GOOOH is making. If the issue, as written in the Questionnaire, comes up for vote, how would you vote? I had an interesting discussion in another forum on this topic, and in the end we all agreed there was value in answering any questions and specifying where you stand.

This remains the best idea I have found.

The questions seem to focus a lot on Amendments to the Constitution.  The answer to most of the questions is really to go  back to following the Constitution. Asking for spending limits on certain programs is a moot point when the program itself is unconstitutional.  I have answered many of the questions, but most of my answers need clarification.  The powers not given to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution are left to the states.  Period.

Carl, regarding your questions on donation limits, the amount is specified in section 110 of the Code of Federal Regulations (I think AS provided a link to the code earlier), but it's easy to find with google. In 110.1, section (b) Contributions to candidates is limited to $2k and in 110.5, the aggregate bienniel contribution limit for individuals is $95k. There are numerous variations depending on the status of the donor, the recipient, multi-candididates, multi-parties, and such, but a $100 donation is absolutely acceptable. Also keep in mind that we are NOT fundraising for any candidate (which must be named); we are fundraising for a concept (representative government). As our candidates are selected, they will have to register and form committees, but we'll be there to guide them through the process. The two parties have tried to make this difficult, but there is a way.

If you haven't read the code, you should do so. It's really very well written and easy to understand. If you do, let us know if you find anything where you think we may not be in compliance.

Keep the questions coming, they keep us on our toes.

Again, we disagree. This section of the code simply says you cannot create or give someone a job, position or any kind of compensation for supporting your campaign or run for office. It does not imply in any way that a person cannot donate $100 to a political party, or that the political party cannot ask a candidate to commit to supporting a "promise," which he himself has made by the way he answered the Questionnaire and therefore defined.

For context, Section 599 says you cannot "promise an appointment" and Section 601 says you cannot "Deprive employment".

This section of the code is clearly talking about offering jobs and money for political favor. It has nothing to do with asking a candidate to vote as he said he would. Remember, nobody is telling a candidate how to answer any question, we are simply asking him to commit to voting as he said he would. We remain confident this is perfectly legal, and more importantly, makes perfect sense. To think a judge would even consider hearing a case that say a Congressman is not allowed to keep a promise that violates any law is incomprehensible.

§ 600. Promise of employment or other benefit t for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position,
compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or
made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special
consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration,
favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition
to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary
election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for
any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.

Direct from the campaign legal code. Its iron clad, and has been tested and worked through in court. You can interpret the law any way you wish, but several judges have already done that, and merely stating "I don't think so" without any legal experience or background is somewhat naive.
Also, if you plan is to form an official GOOOH Party, then I'm afraid I must withdraw completely. If you check the Hatch act you'll find that partisan politics are off limits for any federal employee ( I'm not a contractor. IM a DOT employee). I was expecting, based on the intent here, that each candidate would be an independent. After reading a few dozen pages of campaign law its pretty clear that that ONLY way this could work is by declaring yourself a Party, lest you be severely limited in what you can donate and do for each campaign. Also, organizing such a large group of candidates under any umbrella other than a party would potentially fall under racketeering laws.
http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
You REALLY need a lawyer and an accountant pretty quickly. Since you've already accepted donations with your stated goal to elect officials and didn't use the language "Explore the possibility" or "investigate", you've already passed several deadlines for reporting the money under most circumstances. If you proceed as a party now, you might find yourself fined ( jailed for up to a year, which is unlikely) or obligated to return the money to donors for failing to organize properly. This is the reason you see the term "Exploratory committee" used. You cant simply start accepting money then try to figure out what to do with it. The clock starts ticking once you've accepted the money with the goal of definite political action.
Theres a reason this isn't done by everyone. Its an unfortunate one, but you cant fix it by ignoring it. It's built that way from the start.

We are continuing to build our Mangement team and are actively recruiting additional legal council and software engineers (we could use a good graphic artist). Anyone out there that has any expertise to share that wants to get involved, please let us know through the Contact Us link at the bottom of each page.

We interpret the Code of Federal Regulations differently than what your post says, but agree with your point. We are adding a question to the User Profile that says: "I am a Federal Contractor (as defined in 11 CFR 100.10), and as such my donations cannot go to the GOOOH National Committee. I would like my donation to fund the efforts of the GOOOH LLC." The exact wording will likely be revised, but your point is valid that Federal Contractors cannot give money directly to a National Party (but they can give money to a State or Local Party). For now, any donations from Federal Contractors will go directly to GOOOH LLC to help support the system. In the future, when we begin forming the State versions of the GOOOH Party, we will then direct the money to that organization.

We hope you will continue to point out the flaws in the system so that we can evolve and accomodate. We also hope you will bear with us as we build out the organization on the fly. This is a true start-up operation, and anyone who has ever been through the process knows you learn new things as you progress.

For now, all donations are accumulating in the GOOOH National Committee Bank Account at Bank of America. 100% of the funds collected to day are being held in reserve. We will begin soliciting donations once we achieve critical mass in membership.

Thanks again. Your input is highly valued.

Im a little surprised this hasnt come up yet, but what GOOOH really needs is a legal council. Even if we arent concerned for our own well being, the FIRST thing partisan candidates do is look for legal means to disqualify opposing candidates. Its rudimentary politics, and while it might be our goal to slay the dragon, you cant just pretend he doesnt exist until you you are knighted. Also be warned that declaring yourself a Political Party has many caveats that could easily sink the project. Not the least of which, it will disqualify me. I'm a current federal employee, and while I'm not prohibited from running for office as an independant, I cannot participate in any partisan political race. You'll notice a distinct lack of ANY mention of such things in all my posts.

Most likely a PAC will be the vehical of choice here. The do not have to be affiliated to a party, and they are not restricted in the amounts they can give to candidates. Your agreement will have to be modified to indicate its an affirmation of principals your PAC seeks to promote. The other option would be to form a literal corporation such as the ROn Paul Blimp, and as such provide services to preferred candidates for a specific (read as negligable) cost. The latter is a somewhat questionable area so far. Expect it to be tested in court if Ron Paul beginns winning elections. As a for profit corporation you wont have to report ANY earnings per se, and all donations will actually be sponsorship of the said devices used to promote the political ideal of those paying for it. This would work for GOOOH since it has not professed any particular political goal or affiliation, and thus would merely be providing a service to those who would like to see change in our congress.

You REALLY need a lawyer versed in campaign law. Contact the guys who run the Ron Paul Blimp and see if they can steer you to someone who feels the same way as we do and would be willing to help with some authorative information.